Heretics

[With_Questions]

In another thread I found this quote:

I’m confused…what’s going on here? At any rate, his religious views state that he is a “Reformed Protestant” and therefore is still a non-Catholic heretic.

So…if you are not a Catholic but a Christian are you a heretic?

I ask because this poster seems to think that all non-Catcholic Christians are heretics. After all, the poster of this thread only knew that the object of “he” was a “Reformed Protestant”. That was enough information for this poster to judge the “Reformed Protestant” as a heretic.

Which gets me to thinking.

They used to burn heretics. Is burning heretics morally right. Note, I am not being accusatory here because I realize that John Calvin did the same thing.

 

[Psalter]

In another thread I found this quote:

So…if you are not a Catholic but a Christian are you a heretic?

I ask because this poster seems to think that all non-Catcholic Christians are heretics. After all, the poster of this thread only knew that the object of “he” was a “Reformed Protestant”. That was enough information for this poster to judge the “Reformed Protestant” as a heretic.

Which gets me to thinking.

They used to burn heretics. Is burning heretics morally right. Note, I am not being accusatory here because I realize that John Calvin did the same thing.

Hi there!
I am the poster who referred to the Reformed guy as a “non-Catholic heretic”.
Most non-Catholic Christians are heretics…a few are schismatic only, meaning they accept all the dogmas of the faith and have valid apostolic succession but are not in communion with the Holy See. Many Eastern Orthodox are schismatic only, while some also hold heretical views or at least border on heresy. All Protestants are heretics by default. A heretic is a baptized person who publicly or privately dissents from a doctrine of the Catholic faith. Mormons, Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. might also be considered heretics even though technically they aren’t Christians at all.

I think that the state has a moral right to punish wrongdoers and if heresy is a crime like it was in many Catholic countries, the state is justified in certain circumstances in punishing formal heretics even to the point of putting them to death, in order that so many souls might be spared in the long-run. I don’t agree with burning them at the stake though; I think that is too cruel a form of punishment.

 

[Kaninchen]

I think that the state has a moral right to punish wrongdoers and if heresy is a crime like it was in many Catholic countries, the state is justified in certain circumstances in punishing formal heretics even to the point of putting them to death, in order that so many souls might be spared in the long-run. I don’t agree with burning them at the stake though; I think that is too cruel a form of punishment.

So, countries who might regard Catholics as very naughty would be ok killing them off then?

 

[T700]

Thank God for the separation of Church and State.

Amen!

 

[With_Questions]

Hi there!
I am the poster who referred to the Reformed guy as a “non-Catholic heretic”.
Most non-Catholic Christians are heretics…a few are schismatic only, meaning they accept all the dogmas of the faith and have valid apostolic succession but are not in communion with the Holy See. Many Eastern Orthodox are schismatic only, while some also hold heretical views or at least border on heresy. All Protestants are heretics by default. A heretic is a baptized person who publicly or privately dissents from a doctrine of the Catholic faith. Mormons, Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. might also be considered heretics even though technically they aren’t Christians at all.

I think that the state has a moral right to punish wrongdoers and if heresy is a crime like it was in many Catholic countries, the state is justified in certain circumstances in punishing formal heretics even to the point of putting them to death, in order that so many souls might be spared in the long-run. I don’t agree with burning them at the stake though; I think that is too cruel a form of punishment.

Got it.

I am a heretic. The state in the past was justified in killing heretics, although burning them was a little over the top. The state should have been like Zwingli and only drowned heretics.

So if if the state sent me to the electric chair for being a Protestant, you therefore have no problems with this. You would have issues though if I were burnt at the stake.

Well, I am leaving on vacation and probably should not have started this thread, but this was very informative.

 

[ralphinal]

Got it.

I am a heretic. The state in the past was justified in killing heretics, although burning them was a little over the top. The state should have been like Zwingli and only drowned heretics.

So if if the state sent me to the electric chair for being a Protestant, you therefore have no problems with this. You would have issues though if I were burnt at the stake.

Well, I am leaving on vacation and probably should not have started this thread, but this was very informative.

Have a safe and fun vacation.

So you will know, not all Catholics, including the Bishops, hold to that concept. To many, in order to be guilty of the sin of heresy, you must know and understand , to the best of your ability, what the Church teaches then decide to beleive in opposition. In other words, you must know the Truth and prefer the lie.

I will never accept that it is good to kill any heretic. At all. It is one thing to exclude them from the sacraments until they repent. Killing them, however, is not our job.

 

[1ke]

Got it. I am a heretic.

Psalter is incorrect regarding the Catholic Church’s stance regarding those born into non-Catholic sects.

While the Church absolutely considers the doctrines of those denominations “heretical” (as in not correct) those who are born into them are not called heretics. See the Catechism paragraph 818.

Only a Catholic who rejects a definitive teaching of the Church can be charged with heresy. Only Catholics are under the jurisdiction of Canon Law.

You are not a “heretic.”

The state in the past was justified in killing heretics, although burning them was a little over the top. The state should have been like Zwingli and only drowned heretics.

So if if the state sent me to the electric chair for being a Protestant, you therefore have no problems with this. You would have issues though if I were burnt at the stake.

Well, I am leaving on vacation and probably should not have started this thread, but this was very informative.

The state does have the right to use capital punishment-- although of course it was used quite liberally in centuries past. Heresy was a danger to the state as a form of treason and sedition.

If you look at history, the heretical sects often advanced their causes through violent uprisings and teachings that undermined the authority of the legitimate government. In the case of the areas controlled by Protestants, adherence to Catholicism was de facto sedition against the newly established government.

So, while the Church’s concern with heresy was a spiritual matter, from the state’s point of view it was a matter of civil defense against treason/sedition.

This is how the people of that time thought and governed. We think and govern differently. But we cannot judge them by our own standards. Remember, Jesus was executed for sedition too for his religious teachings. It’s how governments kept order, right or wrong.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Thank God for the separation of Church and State.

Really?

I thank God Psalter isn’t in charge of the Church. Or the state for that matter.

Psalter: Consult Luke 9: 51-56 , especially the end:
55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And they went on to another village.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote Dred Scott v. Sanford, saying that although he was personally opposed to slavery (and he was), he couldn’t force his (Catholic) religious beliefs on everyone.

 

[reen12]

To many, in order to be guilty of the sin of heresy, you must know and understand , to the best of your ability, what the Church teaches then decide to beleive in opposition. In other words, you must know the Truth and prefer the lie.

Good God. This sounds like the rules of a complicated board-game.

reen12

 

[ralphinal]

Good God. This sounds like the rules of a complicated board-game.

reen12

Not really. Would God judge you on that which you could not know?

 

[sambos671]

So, countries who might regard Catholics as very naughty would be ok killing them off then?

This is actually funny. Naughty Naughty Catholic! Ha ha ha ha ha.

 

[reen12]

I read an account of how Savanerola was dispatched, and
nearly tossed my lunch. Then there was John Hus.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

quote: reen12, from another thread

[At one point, in Christian history, you never could tell when the forces of light and goodness would light a pile of sticks, at your bound feet…the more to give off the light of truth?]

An ‘illuminating’ period, in the course of Christian history?

Stake burning was not limited to Holy Mother Church - and her warm embrace
of some of her children - which some of her children found too hot to handle.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a106/reen12/Flamesa-1.jpg

At given points, in Christian history, some could read the words of the Creed, by the light given off by the fires.

Who knows?
Maybe these fervid followers, of the Prince of Peace - got the
flames of the stake confused with tongues of fire. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

God spare us a theocracy in any form whatsoever.

reen12

 

[VARC]

Many Eastern Orthodox are schismatic only, while some also hold heretical views or at least border on heresy. All Protestants are heretics by default. .

All of the Orthodox deny papal infallibility, most deny the immaculate conception, among a few others doctrines they take issue with. So why do they get a pass on heresy and not the protestants? Are those teachings less important to Rome? Why the double standard?

 

[reen12]

I can remember thinking, in 1954, that it was odd that
everybody before Jesus had to wait around a long time
to get to see God. And then I was told that the mother
of Jesus was not born in sin, because Jesus saved her
from that, before he was even born.
A picture formed - of the ‘rays’ of grace going backwards.
But not way far backwards. Everybody in the waiting place
had to wait until their turn came. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

reen12

 

[Psalter]

All of the Orthodox deny papal infallibility, most deny the immaculate conception, among a few others doctrines they take issue with. So why do they get a pass on heresy and not the protestants? Are those teachings less important to Rome? Why the double standard?

OK, you’re right, I forgot about the papal infallibility thing. So I suppose that they all are heretics, then. I know some Orthodox who grudgingly accept the Immaculate Conception but insist that they just understand it differently.

 

[With_Questions]

Psalter is incorrect regarding the Catholic Church’s stance regarding those born into non-Catholic sects.

While the Church absolutely considers the doctrines of those denominations “heretical” (as in not correct) those who are born into them are not called heretics. See the Catechism paragraph 818.

Only a Catholic who rejects a definitive teaching of the Church can be charged with heresy. Only Catholics are under the jurisdiction of Canon Law.

You are not a “heretic.”

Back from vacation.

Well that is comforting to learn that I am not a heretic. But wait a minute. I would think I would at least get a gentlemans ‘B’ on Catholicism for Dummies, and I still obstinately reject it. So does that make me a heretic?

Anyway, it is less comforting to learn that friends of mine in my church who originally were Catholics are heretics. So maybe the state would be within bounds to give my friends a lethal injection, since we want to keep the death penalty humane here. At least if what Mr. Psalter says is correct.

Anyway, that is the way that the Catechism reads to me, at least in the link you cited. But apparantly Psalter disagrees. So my question to Psalter would be whether the Catechism is wrong, or whether I am just reading it wrong.

 

[1ke]

Back from vacation.

Well that is comforting to learn that I am not a heretic. But wait a minute. I would think I would at least get a gentlemans ‘B’ on Catholicism for Dummies, and I still obstinately reject it. So does that make me a heretic?

God will judge. We are all accountable for our knowledge and what we do with it.

But, no, you are not a formal heretic. As I already stated, only Catholics are subject to Canon Law.

Anyway, it is less comforting to learn that friends of mine in my church who originally were Catholics are heretics.

Why?

So maybe the state would be within bounds to give my friends a lethal injection, since we want to keep the death penalty humane here. At least if what Mr. Psalter says is correct.

I don’t think it’s productive to make comments such as these. No one will take you seirously.

 

[VARC]

OK, you’re right, I forgot about the papal infallibility thing. So I suppose that they all are heretics, then. I know some Orthodox who grudgingly accept the Immaculate Conception but insist that they just understand it differently.

There you have it folks. Every Christian who is not a Roman catholic is a heretic.

P.S. Before any eastern catholic chimes in I’ll say that I see them as Roman catholic that use eastern rites as their churches are completely and immediately under the conrtol of the Roman bishop